tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post3944540732275359043..comments2024-03-29T09:14:53.583+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: SP and SWP Debate the Revolutionary PartyPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-56014791707156606752008-11-24T12:26:00.000+00:002008-11-24T12:26:00.000+00:00Lol!I've always fancied the Democratic Socialist P...Lol!<BR/><BR/>I've always fancied the Democratic Socialist Party as a name myself, seeing as the Australian DSP/DSM is hardly a household name in these parts. But I'd be more than happy if a new workers' party adopted the SP's monicker, though the miserablists of the SPGB wouldn't be happy!Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-79495816103064560012008-11-24T02:06:00.000+00:002008-11-24T02:06:00.000+00:00"I had just been thinking this morning that perhap..."I had just been thinking this morning that perhaps the logical name for a new socialist party would be the "Socialist Party", but that might not be acceptable to those not currently in it."<BR/><BR/>Given the W in SWP and the SP's involvement in the Campaign for a New Workers' Party can I suggest:<BR/><BR/>the Workers' Party<BR/><BR/>It's either that or the New Labour Party ;-)Charlie Markshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12770820928636046622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-78697697003493634032008-11-22T14:32:00.000+00:002008-11-22T14:32:00.000+00:00That's an interesting debate. I had just been thin...That's an interesting debate. I had just been thinking this morning that perhaps the logical name for a new socialist party would be the "Socialist Party", but that might not be acceptable to those not currently in it.<BR/><BR/>I wish I could help with your desire to know what the SWP's current critique of the SP is, but I'm ignorant on the matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-64241380735434059692008-11-17T01:32:00.000+00:002008-11-17T01:32:00.000+00:00"For example, when I say "various Stalinists," I m...<I>"For example, when I say "various Stalinists," I mean seven different varieties with less than ten members each. So, if I were to explain our relations with every group in Boston, it would be way, way, way too long (although not without interesting anecdotes)."</I><BR/><BR/>Though maybe something you should write up at some point.redmetalgeekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15896475278613442835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-38797529452106575822008-11-16T21:04:00.000+00:002008-11-16T21:04:00.000+00:00Aye Phil,laughing at the daftness of it all - but ...Aye Phil,laughing at the daftness of it all - but actually I think it would give me the creeps and I don't like horror films, so I think I would dodge that one!Ms Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01488172624713157756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-73528078029365070042008-11-16T19:55:00.000+00:002008-11-16T19:55:00.000+00:00salt-water Taaffeite back again. Phil: I'm also th...salt-water Taaffeite back again. Phil: I'm also the only US CWIer that comments here. It would obviously be more exciting if you had lots of US comrades reading your blog. Sorry to burst your bubble.<BR/><BR/>Just a clarifying point on my comment above. Due to Boston's intellectual and radical heritage, nearly every single left group that exists in the U.S. exists here. Some groups here in Boston only exist here in Boston. <BR/><BR/>For example, when I say "various Stalinists," I mean seven different varieties with less than ten members each. So, if I were to explain our relations with every group in Boston, it would be way, way, way too long (although not without interesting anecdotes).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-55243468649189036242008-11-16T17:01:00.000+00:002008-11-16T17:01:00.000+00:00Come now Cat. Should it ever happen I bet I'd find...Come now Cat. Should it ever happen I bet I'd find you at the back of the hall in heavy disguise, box of popcorn in hand ;)Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-38846723090650984152008-11-16T14:17:00.000+00:002008-11-16T14:17:00.000+00:00"Hannah went on to note the SWP took a similar lin..."Hannah went on to note the SWP took a similar line at the founding conference of Solidarity. The organisation, which split with the SSP in the wake of the Tommy Sheridan affair, is currently sub-titled 'Scotland's Socialist Movement'. The SWP voted against the inclusion of socialism and the setting up of Solidarity as a socialist organisation".<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the only honest thing the SWP ever done!!<BR/><BR/>A joint CWI/SWP conference now that's a conference I would pay money NOT to go to.<BR/><BR/>Bitter? Not me :-)Ms Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01488172624713157756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-83703062577106244922008-11-16T00:23:00.000+00:002008-11-16T00:23:00.000+00:00" . . . Raymond Lotta and others put the Maoist ca...<I>" . . . Raymond Lotta and others put the Maoist case that the SU was capitalist . . . "</I><BR/><BR/>Loved him in Goodfellas. Shame he ended up with the Badfellas.<BR/><BR/>I'll get my coat. Brooklyn autumns can be very chilly.Imposs1904https://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-36232003811496464742008-11-15T23:59:00.000+00:002008-11-15T23:59:00.000+00:00salt water Taaffeite back again (inside joke).We w...salt water Taaffeite back again (inside joke).<BR/><BR/>We work very closely with ex-SWPers in the anti-war and immigrant rights movement. The SPUSA endorsed our candidate for City Council in Boston. We work with them in many types of campaigns, although they are quite small here. Same goes for Solidarity who are also quite small here. Moody's in both those groups and is generally reflective of their honest anti-sectarianism (except if someone on Solidarity's right wing comes across an open socialist in the trade union movement).<BR/><BR/>We treat the ISO like we treat left Democrats: always try to work with them, but NEVER EVER trust them. Dishonesty seems to be built into their bone structure.<BR/><BR/>We are the biggest left group in Boston by far. In the trade union field, we mainly go it alone. The rest of the organized left doesn't really exist in the unions here besides various Stalinists who we usually avoid like the plague. We recruited the best of the people in the Maoist/Stalinist orbit which totally shocked them all (and is still a source of bragging rights for us).<BR/><BR/>You're right Moody; I was a bit sloppy in calling those two groups Maoist. I wanna meet these Kasama people and see if they're reasonable face-to-face.<BR/><BR/>Enough of this for now because Coatesy is right: NPA, PRC, Die Linke, PSoL, PSUV, etc. are much more important than the US left at this stage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-90440955592435922882008-11-15T14:33:00.000+00:002008-11-15T14:33:00.000+00:00Now Ken, be careful, you're calling an awful lot o...Now Ken, be careful, you're calling an awful lot of polemical fire down upon your head!<BR/><BR/>Re: the Rural Peoples' Party - surely they must be rewarded for being the maddest left sect going. Identifying themselves with the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is bad enough, but the Rev Jim Jones? WTF? You couldn't make 'em up.<BR/><BR/>Q for the Socialist Alternative/CWI USA comrades, just out of interest how do you get on with other groups aside from the IMT? Do you come across others a lot in your day to day work? In Stoke we occasionally brush up against the v small local SWP presence (primarily in anti-fascist stuff), and we have a comrade from Workers' Power who comes up our stalls on a Saturday to sell us his paper. That's about it!Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-71905962372245683402008-11-15T13:25:00.000+00:002008-11-15T13:25:00.000+00:00To return to the SWP and SP via US Maoism ... Abou...To return to the SWP and SP via US Maoism ... <BR/><BR/>About ten years ago I was in NYC and visited the RCP's Revolution Books. I picked up an old book called <I>The Soviet Union: Socialist or Social-Imperialist</I>. Raymond Lotta and others put the Maoist case that the SU was capitalist, Al Szymanski and David Leibman (?) countered with a pro-Soviet (though not uncritical) analysis, that the SU was socialist (which for these two didn't mean much more than that the state was a bureaucratic form of workers' power).<BR/><BR/>Needless to say, this was all very much a 'Stalinist' form of a familiar Trotskyist debate, such as that between the SWP and SP. <BR/><BR/>And what struck me then is that Marxism is <I>so fucking useless</I> that you can't even use it to distinguish between capitalism and socialism!Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03493440163559858462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-47075677899908163032008-11-15T11:59:00.000+00:002008-11-15T11:59:00.000+00:00Interesting that there was no reference to Besance...Interesting that there was no reference to Besancenot and the Nouveau Parti Anti-Capitaliste, which is of rather more relevance (like by a thousand times) than the American left, such as it is.<BR/><BR/>Even the Guardian today cites this.<BR/><BR/>I have my own thoughts about the NPA. But surely this, though a bit overshadowed by Die Linke, is the central phenomenonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-40082706062883946812008-11-15T07:06:00.000+00:002008-11-15T07:06:00.000+00:00Yo, salt-water Taffeite!A drunk leader of WWP told...Yo, salt-water Taffeite!<BR/><BR/><I>A drunk leader of WWP told me that the split with PSL was over the "national question" of a white male (Brian Becker) wanting to be the leader of WWP. The WWP leader told me that they couldn't accept a white leader (remember Sam Marcy?) because of the "national question." Hence, Larry Holmes.</I><BR/><BR/>Now that you mention it, that does sound vaguely familiar (and makes some sense considering the Becker family's leadership in PSL.) I also agree that the split over electoral politics doesn't make much sense either, but again, the WWP-PSL split didn't produce any sort of public split documents (major sign they're no longer Trots, really :P), so it's hard to figure out what exactly happened with them. But, I suppose that's why we ply people of other tendencies with alcohol...<BR/><BR/>Re Kasama and the Rural People's Party, it seems that Kasama isn't explicitly labelling itself as Maoist, and primarily just use "communist" to describe themselves. Then again, the RCP does that too, so it makes some sense considering Kasama is coming out of the slow implosion of the RCP into even more of an Avakian cult than it was before. They seem like good people though, and I think should be seriously paid attention to. Maybe before too long there will be a Maoist current in the US that are actually committed revolutionaries without being vaguely cultish ultra-lefts.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't consider the RPP to be explicitly Maoist either (though they do come out of the hilarious tradition of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, it seems.) Mainly, I'd describe their political ideology as batshit crazy. Unfortunately, Ken, I think they are for real, though probably not outside the minds of 20 people or so.redmetalgeekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15896475278613442835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-18722842597151868662008-11-15T07:05:00.000+00:002008-11-15T07:05:00.000+00:00I think Charlie Marks makes some important points ...I think Charlie Marks makes some important points here. <BR/>My view for what its worth, is to remind myself of the old sayin "philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it". The far left needs to get together on the basis of common ground and fight together as a unit. The time for "debates" while interesting should be secondary to fighting the employer and their system. That unity has to be acheived on the basis of trust.<BR/>Unfortunately, that trust is often broken by left groups having discipline with there own small organisations and not with the principle of unity to acheive common aims.<BR/><BR/>Lets get on with the "changing the world " bit rather than philosophising over differences.<BR/><BR/>In solidarity<BR/><BR/>Ianianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565935718500940885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-83237282904783126032008-11-14T23:54:00.000+00:002008-11-14T23:54:00.000+00:00I can only hope that the Rural People's Party foll...I can only hope that the <A HREF="http://ruralpeople.atspace.org/" REL="nofollow">Rural People's Party</A> follows to the end the road of its glorious exemplar, Jim Jones. <BR/><BR/>Can this group be for real?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03493440163559858462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-57479191773935613612008-11-14T21:44:00.000+00:002008-11-14T21:44:00.000+00:00I was one of the young CWIers in the USA at the Tr...I was one of the young CWIers in the USA at the Trotsky conference. Hey Moody!<BR/><BR/>Mark: your knowledge of the US left is a bit scary. At first, I thought you were strange for knowing all that. Then, I realized that my knowledge of the British left is even worse. <BR/><BR/>A drunk leader of WWP told me that the split with PSL was over the "national question" of a white male (Brian Becker) wanting to be the leader of WWP. The WWP leader told me that they couldn't accept a white leader (remember Sam Marcy?) because of the "national question." Hence, Larry Holmes.<BR/><BR/>I had thought that the split was over running candidates in the 2004 elections, but then in 2008 PSL ran candidates and WWP didn't (the opposite of the rumored lines of the split).<BR/><BR/>For US left watchers: the two new Maoist groups on the block (one interesting and one scary) are Kasama Project and Rural People's Party.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-47712079780938548012008-11-14T19:49:00.000+00:002008-11-14T19:49:00.000+00:00"Any more info on the split in the WWP? Whatever h...<I>"Any more info on the split in the WWP? Whatever happened to the IST affiliate (Left Turn?) after the ISO parted company with the SWP? And generally, how well do US Trotskyists get on with each other? Is it even worse than Britain?"</I><BR/><BR/>The WWP split actually happened about four years ago, but there wasn't really much polemical fallout in the broader socialist movement, so many spotters and other leftists are somewhat confused as to what actually happened. I think it had to do with one faction not wanting to oppose John Kerry in 2004, but I really could be wrong. The new party, Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) ran a few candidates in the 2008 elections, including a presidential slate. PSL also inherited the ANSWER coalition, which someone else has already mentioned.<BR/><BR/>In terms of the elections, PSL ran on a fairly revolutionary socialist platform, so I don't have much doubt about their commitment to a revolutionary socialist perspective. However, my guess is that they've inherited at least some of the practises of Workers World, so this could become more of a hindrance than a help in the future.<BR/><BR/>I don't know that much about Left Turn. Basically, then also left the IST, and are more or less just a magazine now, though they still exist on at least some level. Some Left Turn activists in NYC have been in the orbit of Solidarity, but I doubt that's anything official.<BR/><BR/>On Trots in the US in general, there was the conference on the legacy of Trotskyism (and as such the Socialist Workers Party) in the US, featuring many former US SWPers, who are now in numerous socialist groups (Solidarity, Socialist Action, Socialist Organizer), or in no socialist group at all. At the conference, though, there were representatives from nearly all the Trotskyist tendencies in the US (even if they were just there to denounce it.) The ISO had a decent contingent (including Ahmed Shawki), both the US sections of the CWI and the IMT were there, etc. On the whole, discussion was fairly comradely. It's possibly interesting to note that the main groups of people from the IMT-US and CWI-US were young, and fairly friendly with each other. Personally, I think that the CWI-IMT split makes little to no sense in the US context, as there isn't a classical "bourgeois/reformist workers party", so both the Workers International League and Socialist Alternative's party-building strategy involves a "Labor Party" of some sort, though the terminology is somewhat different- WIL specifically talks about a "Labor Party," while SocAlt talks more often about a "workers party"- probably due due to the influence from their respective internationals.redmetalgeekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15896475278613442835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-32305805527039337852008-11-14T16:18:00.000+00:002008-11-14T16:18:00.000+00:00thanks for this. Interested to see this years swp ...thanks for this. Interested to see this years swp int.bulletins. surely they are on-line by now!?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-87119255215272722922008-11-14T06:18:00.000+00:002008-11-14T06:18:00.000+00:00My suggestion of a Marxisms conference wasn't to d...My suggestion of a Marxisms conference wasn't to discuss past differneces, but on how both parties view the current situation and how to proceed in building the revolutionary party.<BR/><BR/>Comrades must be conscious of the fact that the squabbling that goes on is offputting to those new to the movement. Mark Steel spoke passionately about this. Derek Wall is to be thanked for his own efforts to reach out to other tendencies.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I feel that some of the criticisms that come from comrades in the anarchist tradition are quite useful. Very often we will spend time talking about where others made mistakes in the past - which has the effect of making them feel personally attacked. Certainly, this has been my impression with SWP comrades. Far better to try and act constructively with each other.<BR/><BR/>Here's my tips for debating with folks from other tendencies:<BR/><BR/>* Start by politely stating where you disagree and then affirm that you both have some common ground and can work together. This leaves the person you are speaking to with a feeling that you are not confronting them or seeking to start a shouting match.<BR/><BR/>* Use language that makes clear that you are expressing you opinions and your understanding and that other opinions and understandings exist – this tells the other person that you are willing to enter into a reasoned debate and accept that you may not be right. For example, “In my opinion, _____ is not _____.” – “I believe _____ is a bad idea because I think that _____.” – “I understand that _____.” Be sure to speak in a calm and clear manner and to indicate with your tone of voice and body language that you are interested in hearing the opinions of the other person.<BR/><BR/>* When listening to what the other person is saying, nod your head to encourage the other person to continue. Be sure to make and maintain eye contact.<BR/><BR/>* When replying, do not interrupt or convey a dismissive attitude.Charlie Markshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12770820928636046622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-63757666710315583652008-11-13T22:26:00.000+00:002008-11-13T22:26:00.000+00:00Left Turn, which numbered less than 10, then fell ...Left Turn, which numbered less than 10, then fell out with the IST, the SWP do not have a sister organisation in the US.<BR/><BR/>phAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-63816529108260105602008-11-13T22:04:00.000+00:002008-11-13T22:04:00.000+00:00I must have misheard Brother Smith, I guess. Perha...I must have misheard Brother Smith, I guess. Perhaps he was referring to the sixties movements.<BR/><BR/>Any more info on the split in the WWP? Whatever happened to the IST affiliate (Left Turn?) after the ISO parted company with the SWP? And generally, how well do US Trotskyists get on with each other? Is it even worse than Britain?Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-7023837278468732962008-11-13T19:23:00.000+00:002008-11-13T19:23:00.000+00:00"It would have been difficult in any case for Trot...<I>"It would have been difficult in any case for Trotskyists to make much headway, given that the entirely understandable impulse of newly-radicalized young people was to identify with the Vietnamese (and by extension the Chinese) Communists."</I><BR/><BR/>That's definitely true, and indeed that's what happened in the 1960s. Looking at 1968-70ish, the claim that US Maoists outstripped US Trotskyists in terms of recruitment (or at least numbers of people following Maoist vs Trotskyist ideas) makes a lot of sense. During that time, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was probably at its highest membership figures, and both the main factions were influenced by Maoist ideas.<BR/><BR/>However, Maoism didn't really coalesce into one single party in the way that Trotskyism (more or less) did with the SWP. There were numerous splits and combinations that happened throughout the 1970s and 80s, and the Chinese Communist Party didn't grace one of these groups with the status of "official" Chinese party until the mid-late 1970s (it was the CP(ML), I believe). To be sure, the RCP was the largest of these groups (and with the bits and pieces of Maoism around today, that still holds true), but since none of them gained the legitimacy of "official Comintern party" or "American section of the Fourth International," the Maoist movement didn't make a long-term organisational impact. Add to that, many of these Maoist groups disappeared in the 1980s (many went into the Jesse Jackson campaign), whereas even the smallest and angriest of Trotskyist sects still have the temerity to keep themselves together, for better or for worse.<BR/><BR/>On the whole, I'd say organised US Trotskyism today is larger than organised US Maoism today.redmetalgeekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15896475278613442835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-76055572998900870012008-11-13T17:54:00.000+00:002008-11-13T17:54:00.000+00:00I thought this was a very interesting post - thank...I thought this was a very interesting post - thanks!Jim Jeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17410387006098326671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-62978765212083134362008-11-13T17:11:00.000+00:002008-11-13T17:11:00.000+00:00The 1960s anti-war movement doesn't really fit the...<I>The 1960s anti-war movement doesn't really fit the SWP's analysis either. In fact the US SWP (no relation) was the most significant organisational force in the mainstream anti-Vietnam war movement. However, it did everything it could to keep the movement restricted to lowest common denominator politics (much as the UK SWP has done with the Stop the War Coalition).</I>Mark-p, that <I>is</I> the SWP's analysis! (Aside from your final comment, of course :-) Callinicos wasn't saying the US SWP stood aside from the antiwar movement, but from its left wing (i.e. the mainly young people who called for Victory to the NLF, and so on.)<BR/><BR/>It would have been difficult in any case for Trotskyists to make much headway, given that the entirely understandable impulse of newly-radicalized young people was to identify with the Vietnamese (and by extension the Chinese) Communists.<BR/><BR/>I'm relieved to hear that I haven't entirely misjudged the current state of the US far left.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03493440163559858462noreply@blogger.com